六种常用职业健康风险评估模型在小型印刷企业中的定量比较  

Quantitative comparison of six common occupational health risk assessment models for small printing companies

作　　者：徐秋凉 张美辨[1] 邹华[1] 袁伟明[1] 李飞 XU Qiu-liang;ZHANG Mei-bian;ZOU Hua;YUAN Wei-ming;LI Fei(Institution for Occupational Health and Radiation Protection,Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Hangzhou,Zhejiang 310051,China)

机构地区：[1]浙江省疾病预防控制中心职业健康与辐射防护所,浙江杭州310051

出　　处：《环境与职业医学》2020年第2期131-137,共7页Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(81472961);浙江省重点研发项目(215C03039);广东省职业病防治重点实验室开放课题基金(2017B030314152);2016年度浙江省卫生创新人才培养工程(无编号);2018年度浙江省151人才工程(无编号).

摘　　要：[背景]目前国际研究领域中职业健康风险评估模型多达十几种,每种模型由于其建立的技术原理不同,各有其自身的优势和局限性。采用不同的模型对同一危害进行评估,得出的结果并不完全一致,目前有关各种职业健康风险评估模型间差异的研究报道很少。[目的]研究六种常用职业健康风险评估模型之间的差异,为相关标准制定、职业健康风险评估方法学研究及应用提供参考依据。[方法]于2019年选取浙江省7家小型印刷企业印刷和复合岗位作为研究对象,印刷岗位和复合岗位接触的风险因子种类相同,可通过比较两个岗位各风险因子浓度比值(即检测浓度与职业接触限值的比值)来确定岗位的固有风险,作为判定各模型风险评估结果准确性的依据。运用六种常见的职业健康风险评估模型(美国EPA模型、新加坡模型、英国COSHH模型、澳大利亚模型、罗马尼亚模型和ICMM模型)对7家企业印刷和复合岗位各风险因子进行职业健康风险评估;利用风险比值(RR)对各风险评估模型进行定量比较,验证六种模型评估结果的准确性,分析评估结果的平行性及相关性。[结果]7家印刷企业复合岗位二甲苯和乙酸乙酯浓度比值均值(0.33±0.40)大于印刷岗位(0.08±0.07)(P<0.05),故以复合岗位二甲苯和乙酸乙酯的固有风险高于印刷岗位作为判定模型评估结果准确性的依据。美国EPA模型、新加坡模型得出复合岗位二甲苯和乙酸乙酯的RR均值高于印刷岗位(P<0.05),与岗位固有风险结果相符;而其他模型未能区分复合岗位、印刷岗位风险的差别。六种模型评估结果平行性分析结果显示:美国EPA模型RR均值(0.65±0.34)最大,其次为英国COSHH模型(0.50±0.15),再次为新加坡模型(0.36±0.15)、澳大利亚模型(0.34±0.15)和ICMM模型(0.34±0.08),罗马尼亚模型RR均值(0.20±0.10)最小(4个层次之间两两比较,P<0.05)。相关性分析结果�[Background]There are more than ten kinds of occupational health risk assessment models in the world.Each model has its own advantages and limitations due to its different technical principles.Different models may generate inconsistent results of risk assessment towards a single hazard.At present,there are few reports on the differences among various occupational health risk assessment models.[Objective]The purpose of this study is to understand the differences among six commonlyused occupational health risk assessment models,and to provide references for the formulation of relevant standards and for the methodological study and application of occupational health risk assessments.[Methods]The printing and laminating positions of seven small printing companies in Zhejiang Province were selected as study subjects in 2019.Because they were exposed to the same risk factors,the inherent risks of both positions were estimated by comparing occupational hazard concentration ratio(the ratio of hazard concentration to occupational exposure limit),and then were used to determine the accuracy of results calculated by each risk assessment model.Six common occupational health risk assessment models(i.e.,U.S.EPA model,Singapore model,UK COSHH model,Australian model,Romanian model,and ICMM model)were used to assess the identified occupational health risk factors of the selected printing and laminating positions.A quantitative comparison of the risk assessment models was conducted using risk ratio(RR)to verify the accuracy and analyze the parallelism and correlation of the assessment results.[Results]The average xylene and ethyl acetate concentration ratio of the laminating positions(0.33±0.40)in the selected seven printing companies was greater than the ratio of the printing positions(0.08±0.07)(P<0.05),thus it was the basis for judging the accuracy of model evaluation results that higher inherent risk of xylene and ethyl acetate in laminating positions than that in printing positions.According to U.S.EPA model and Singapore m

关 键 词：印刷行业 职业健康 风险评估 模型 定量 比较研究 

分 类 号：R134[医药卫生—劳动卫生]